When crossing median, keep to right, readers say

MOVE IT!

RAD SALLEE, Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Published
5:30 am CDT, Monday, August 14, 2006

The readers have spoken in the great median left-turn debate, and it's not even close.

Mail is about 10 to 1 in favor of keeping to the right or far side of the gaps between medians instead of hugging the left or near side. In the minority were Move It! and Ernest Gaw, who submitted the question in a dispute with Dan Lewis.

Gaw said two cars crossing the gap in opposite directions should not have to do a "do-si-do" as they pass each other and continue in opposite directions.

"Your column on crossing medians is rubbish. One should ALWAYS stay to the right in a crossover," Mitchell said.

"Go to any divided highway in the USA, turn into the crossover, and where is the stop sign? On the right, of course, because that's where you're supposed to be."

Another good reason for staying to the right is "to be able to see oncoming traffic before exiting the crossover, as opposed to having your view blocked by a car or van or truck going in the opposite direction in the crossover," he notes.

The visibility issue caused when two cars cross at the same time, each hugging the driver's side median, was cited by most of the readers.

"Unfortunately, your column will only serve to further confuse drivers who don't know any better," Mitchell wrote.

As H.L. Mencken, I believe, used to reply to readers: "Sir, you could be right."

But as Mary Ann Bocox also pointed out, "Not many people follow this guideline, and I've been given many finger signals from other drivers by continuing to follow it."

Two views of Metro route

Regarding the
Metropolitan Transit Authority
's plans to extend light rail along Richmond Avenue from Main Street to Sage, here are two views of legislative oversight:

"This is simple and done. Metro is not going to build it on Richmond, period. I'll do whatever is necessary to protect my constituents on Richmond." — U.S. Rep. John Culberson.

"This is what happens when outsiders start intervening in the process. We had a process which called for Metro to look at the options until December and a congressman decided that it was his prerogative to step in and demand an answer sooner." — architect Doug Childers, president of richmondrail.org.

Bait-and-switch?

Recent radio interview with Culberson on Richmond rail plan:

Q: "So, John, do you think from the outset that this was always the (Metro) game plan?"

A: "Yes."

Q: "So it was a bait-and-switch and they knew that if they put it on the ballot it would have been defeated?"

A: "It's hard for me to come to any other conclusion."

Culberson went on to say he was referring to former Metro leaders, not the current ones under Mayor Bill White, but the quotes raise an interesting point.

The 2003 referendum authorizing Metro to expand its light rail system was decided with 51.7 percent of the vote. It might have failed if the ballot had mentioned Richmond as a possible route.

One wonders if the referendum were held today, would voters approve it with Metro's latest Richmond rail plan, designed to be lower-impact?

If Metro's efforts to put at least part of the University line on Richmond are blocked, the agency could proceed with other planned routes, allowing traffic congestion and neighborhood envy to build up along Richmond until the time is ripe for another try.

Commuter rail

Metro officials say a light rail route from Kirby to Hillcroft, on Metro-owned land beside Westpark, might not generate enough riders to qualify for federal funding. But the right-of-way, which extends all the way to Eagle Lake, could be used eventually for commuter rail to Fort Bend County and Katy.

Culberson has some enthusiasm for commuter rail.

The route, roughly parallel to and about five miles south of the Katy Freeway, is more attractive now that the prospect of rail on the Katy Freeway itself has become — in the words of Metro board chairman David Wolff — "only a wistful memory."